Forum:TearRing Saga on this wiki
Me and Otherarrow have already discussed this at great length. I believe that most (everything except the pages on the actual games and one on the series) TearRing saga pages and there templates should be moved off this wiki onto an actual TearRing Saga wiki. This is because they keep up cropping into the wanted pages or the lonely pages or if I click random page i find myself staring a random TearRing Saga character aswell as other annoyances. Otherarrow disagrees, saying that the TearRing Saga pages aren't affecting us that much and that the TearRing Saga Wiki woudn't get any edits, so those pages will be worse off. Long story short, rather than start an edit war we've decided to put it up to a community decision, to vote please sign with --~~~~ and please, if you have any relevant points, want to leave a reason, or have other suggestions please feel free to add them to the comments section. --Semajdraehs- any replies to my Talk page 10:51, November 22, 2009 (UTC) In case of the unlikely chance that users would resort to sockpuppeting, which I am accusing no one of doing but it may happen in the future, I will remove and not count any votes from IP users, like with the featured article voting. No offense intended, if you so choose you can register and vote legitimately.--Otherarrow 23:05, April 4, 2010 (UTC) :A reminder, remember to actually sign your vote. I won't remove any of the unsigned votes from registered users that came before this notice, but I will remove any from now on.--Otherarrow 21:38, July 4, 2010 (UTC) A few things to clarify first: *Your account will still work on the other wiki since it will also be a wikia wiki. *There will be effort in transfering images and changing some structure, but the actual content will transfer easily dure to some Wikia tools. *The TearRing Saga Wiki will not be completely abandoned when moved, I'm sure me and Otherarrow will make every effort to maintain it while a community is being set up. Votes for keeping TearRing Saga pages Yeah. Keep. The pages do need some work, but I don't think moving them to another wiki will do anything about that. As for all the people who insist it should go because it "isn't Fire Emblem", well, Nintendo did not think that it seems. And, no offense to TRS fans, but I kinda see what they were getting at. As noted here and below, it is a continuation in eyes of the creator of both series, similar enough for Nintendo to attempt multiple lawsuits, and obscure enough (at least as far as I can tell, again no offense) that only FE fans really know about it anyway.--Otherarrow 13:38, November 22, 2009 (UTC); edited on 22:18, December 2, 2009 (UTC). Keep. Tear Ring Saga is so Fire Emblem it fits. They even have a character named Barts. Emperor Hardin 20:19, November 22, 2009 (UTC) Keep. Nobody will work on a TearRing Saga Wiki. It's also the continuation of the Fire Emblem saga in the eyes of Shouzou Kaga, who created the series. They even have Pegasus Knights and were going to include Mamkutes (they're still there, but renamed)! As for TRS articles appearing on the Wanted lists and whatnot, I'd just consider them like the unpopular FE: Gaiden articles. Aveyn Knight 20:57, November 23, 2009 (UTC) I believe that the TearRing Saga pages here are, quite honestly, the bare minimum for even a related game >.>. TearRing Saga is very much like FE, it's more like FE than even some games in the series (arguably). They're close enough for copy-write infringement, they're close enough for this wiki to keep them. [[User:Cloudofdarkness|'Cloudofdarkness']] [[User Talk: Cloudofdarkness|'was']] [[http://irc.wikia.com/gaming/ | here]] 02:25, December 14, 2009 (UTC) I say keep them. The page for the Berwick saga, an entire game, is just one sentence, summed up to that "it's the sequel". I hardly think that, along with other one-sentence pages for the characters constitutes a new Wiki entirely. --Wyvern Lord 03:04, January 7, 2010 (UTC) it was created by the maker of fire emblem to be like fire emblem. it should be kept.-User:Sophius I vote for keeping it here. After all, the creator of Fire Emblem made this game in the mirror image of the several Fire Emblem games he worked on. Besides, if it was given its own wiki, no one would work on it... --'--Charged151 -' 22:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC) I have voted to keep the TearRing Saga related pages on this Wiki. Shouzou Kaga, the creator of the Fire Emblem series, made the TearRing Saga games and these series are similar. The TearRing Saga only has two installments. If TearRing Saga has its own wiki, that wiki will be a ghost town. Tedius Zanarukando 22:40, April 20, 2010 (UTC) Keep. While I'm not too sure about the series myself, it seems like the TRS articles have some potential for being expanded on by the people who've actually played the game(s). There are strong parallels between the two series as well, and I believe that (probably) no one would edit the articles any further if they were taken off this wiki. --Almanac 05:12, April 21, 2010 (UTC) Let's keep 'em. They are not going to do good on their own wiki, and they are based on Fire Emblem. We might as well leave them here. I like to think of them as something like the Advance Wars article.--Black Dragon Laguz 18:26, July 4, 2010 (UTC) I would vote to keep them. The argument that 'no one cares because they are not out in English' and 'not on Nintendo consoles' seem very odd to me. The not in English argument applies to most FE games. As for the console idea, how many people that are reading this have a Super Famicom vs. how many have a Play Station? I fail to see how that would affect how many people find the information useful. Wizard Yves 17:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC) I don't know much about TearRing Saga, but from the one video I watched for the game, it really does have a striking resemblance to Fire Emblem. Anyone who has not played a Fire Emblem game before can easily mistake it for being one. Hence, I would vote to keep the pages on this wiki, because it is, essentially, Fire Emblem on the PS1 but with a different name. --LughRules! 11:40, September 18, 2010 (UTC) I say that we should keep them. The game is part of Fire Emblem history, even if it isn't that well known. They just need to be cleaned up, and have some stuff added to them. The people who say that the articles aren't well written, does that mean that we should just get rid of all the Gaiden pages? But that is a Fire Emblem game they say. TRS has the same gameplay, almost the same characters, definitly the same Achetypes, and it was made by the same guy! These pages need to be worked on, just like those from Gaiden, thats all, and I bet that someone could find it somewhere through an emulater and play through it so that more stuff can be added. --Ragnell wielder 15:50, October 21, 2010 (UTC) Votes for moving TearRing Saga pages to a new wiki I've already stated my reasons above--Semajdraehs- any replies to my Talk page 12:13, November 22, 2009 (UTC) --Cmolisa0 02:56, December 1, 2009 (UTC) --This is the Fire Emblem wikia, not the Tear ring saga wikia. Even if no one would work on a tear ring saga wikia, they should at least be relocated elsewhere (to the nintendo Wikia perhaps?). 14:02, December 1, 2009 (UTC) --TearRing isn't Fire Emblem; it's TearRing. It may be the spiritual successor to Fire Emblem, but it is not Fire Emblem, and therefore in my opinion it doesn't belong here. Whether a TearRing wikia would be developed or not seems irrelevant to me. Silavor 09:00, January 30, 2010 (UTC) --Unless it says clearly (which it doesn't) that it is part of the Fire Emblem series, it shouldn't be here, whether people would work on it has nothing to do with it. Ej8012 20:13, March 22, 2010 (UTC) --I agree with Ej8012, this articles shouldn't be here as they're from topics apart of Fire Emblem. The Tear Ring saga is more BASSED ON Fire Emblem than a real part of the franchise. Also, the game's only in Japan, making it dificult to get in America and so, almost useless. Another thing I cossider important is that Fire Emblem Games are from and for Nintendo, and the Tear Ring saga's for PS2. I also cosider from a very bad taste that some people desided to create all those articles without even asking about permission or opinions. It's not like creating an article about a chapter or an item, it's a whole wikia appart. Silver-Haired Hero 19:19, April 20, 2010 (UTC) --I think the TearRing pages should be moved to their own wikia. We could then add to this wikia a page about TearRing that sums up the whole series, how the series compares/contrasts to Fire Emblem, etc., similar to the Final Fantasy wikia's page on Kingdom Hearts. --ZD, 14:14, April 22, 2010 (UTC) --Nothing against TRS; it's just that it isn't the same series as Fire Emblem. It should stand alone, despite that the creator is the same person. Tear Ring does not have the same batch of characters, continents, or even cultural relevance as Fire Emblem. Play Smash Bros. with your friends and ask them, "Know what Fire Emblem is?" They will go, "Uh, that game with Marth, Roy and Ike?" If you ask them what TRS is, they will go "Ummm..." TRS does not really associate to FE in most peoples' minds, and so it should receive its own page. Hopefully this will create more publicity/awareness for the series, as well. - June 8, 2010 -- Silver-Haired Hero (and others too) pretty much summed it up already, so I'm not going to repeat that, but TRS has very little to do with the actual FE series. Even if nobody would go to TRS Wiki, it's not FE's or this Wiki's fault. [[User:DarkSamus89|''Dark''Samus]]89 12:30, July 12, 2010 (UTC) -- I agree that they should be moved, or at least seperated better. I know many people say that we should keep them because they're so short, but that's not the problem. The problem is, for example, that they make the tab showing all the classes in the game quite messy and confusing, especially if you, like me, are trying to get an overview of all the classes in the series. This is already somewhat confusing due to some games (especially older ones) having classes for the most part identical to the "mainstream" ones, but with other names, (which can, at least partially, be blamed on the fact that games before FE7 don't have official translations) and having loads of classes not even from FE just makes it so much worse. While the TRS-pages themselves don't do any harm to the wiki, the lack of an obvious separation between content from FE and TRS (like, for example, giving TRS-classes an own category in the class tab instead of grouping them together with "normal" tier 1 and 2 classes) can be rally anoying. I think the TRS-stuff should be handled like the FF-wiki handled Kingdom Hearts stuff: Having one page for the KH-series which aside from general information about the series also explains how KH and FF is connected. Additionally, the pages on things from FF which also appears in KH always have an "other appearances" category that covers the KH-information, as well as any other information on appearences outside of the main series. THAT is excactly what i think this wiki should do with the TRS-stuff, but if that's too much work, then removing the TRS-content from this wiki alltogether is (in my opinion) far better than keeping it as it is now. Thanks for actually reading to the wall of text i just posted. Fenrir-wolf 09:02, July 28, 2011 (UTC) --Move TRS.- User: Teto 123 -Fire Emblem is a seperate series then the tear rings saga, thus should have their own wiki. Itès almost like inviting dragon quest to final fantasy wiki, two different series with the same genre, but both have their own wiki. Tonberry101 4:16, July 19, 2010 (UTC) :I would actually like to compromise (but for official purposes, I vote to move it eventually). I would like to see the TRS grow, with this Wikia's help, until such a time comes where most everything (articles, images, etc.) is close to being accurate and complete. At that time, I feel it should be moved to a Wikia of it's own. I've read everything that has been said about this issue (quite tiresome), so all I really need to know now are: 1. The logistics of what I have very generally proposed above. 2. When will a decision about this issue be made? I would really like to see some closure. --Aivass Remurias 19:42, January 10, 2011 (UTC) ::Oh, one more thing, for those that want to keep TRS here indefinitely, let me ask you: are you actually willing to contribute and maintain the TRS pages, or do you just want them for completion's sake? That might be something to consider. --Aivass Remurias 19:42, January 10, 2011 (UTC) Comments FYI the TRS info would not go on the Nintendo Wiki. Also, I would take this comment to speak against people on either side just voting without commenting. I personally think that doesn't help us here.--Otherarrow 21:47, December 1, 2009 (UTC) Okay then. I've never heard of TearRing Saga, nor do I really care that much about it. Sure, it may be created by the same man who created Fire Emblem, but I wouldn't dedicate pages about Zelda on a Mario wiki just because they were both created by Mr. Miyamoto. Personally, I think these TRS pages will simply clutter up an already disorganized and polluted wiki. Whether or not an independent TRS wiki would be worked on is irrelevant. Those pages don't belong here. --Cmolisa0 18:04, December 4, 2009 (UTC) :Disorganized, maybe, but I wouldn't say it, but polluted? I don't quite get what you mean. (Have I been letting spam run unchecked or something?) Also, it does not look like "Oh they were created by the same guy" but more like "Oh, they were both created by the same guy, and one seems to be a continuation or successor to the other, but isn't due to copyright reasons, but is close enough so that the company that owns the first one tried to sue" Last I checked, Zelda is not known for being any bit Mario-esque, or being considered a continuation in the eyes of Mr. Miyamoto. :EDIT: Also, I'd say at least one of the reasons they "clutter up" the wiki any more so than say the Gaiden articles (about as unpopular, about as incomplete) is because of Semaj's insistence that the TRS info be completely segregated from the rest of the wiki, right down to arguably redundant categories and templates. I know he means well, and in fact I supported him at first, but now I think that it is making it more of a problem than it is already.--Otherarrow 22:28, December 4, 2009 (UTC) ::Okay, I don't think that really changes my opinion on the matter, sorry. I think that this place has too many articles with too little content, and adding more pages, some for games, and more for weapons, chapters, characters, ect... will just add to the pile. I have a feeling these articles will be of little interest to the average Fire Emblem player and will add very little to the community. Gaiden is Fire Emblem. TRS is not Fire Emblem. --Cmolisa0 05:28, December 5, 2009 (UTC) These pages are fine on this wiki, in my oppinion. They just need some cleanup, that's all. They are allright, because they are based on Fire Emblem, and are noteworthy for that. We aren't keeping them because they were created by the same person(that's why we wouldn't talk about The Legend of Zelda series on the Mario wiki).--Black Dragon Laguz 18:21, July 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I agree with some of Cmolisa's comments. I.e: They are not Fire Emblem. I remember I had raised this issue a few months ago on a discussion page. Whether Kaga-san felt it was a continuation or not is (with all due respect) generally irrelevant. Although I have never played TRS (this fact may discredit my opinion more or less) I feel they do not belong here. I also agree with Cmolisa's comment about having enough stubs as it is. My vote is still against keeping them. 20:13, December 8, 2009 (UTC) (The following comment is directed at Kyras' previously unmarked vote, I moved it here to the comments so we don't clutter up the votes with comments. No offense to Hardin.--OA) So according do your definition "Gaiden", "Genealogy of the Holy War", "Thracia", "Blazing Sword", and "Sacred Stones" don't count as fire Emblem games because they don't have Marth, Roy, Or Ike? Specific characters don't make Fire Emblem, its the Archetypes, classes, and world, all of which Tear Ring Saga has. At the most recent vote: Last I checked, Dragon Quest is not really related to Final Fantasy, aside from franchise rivalry, while TRS is very closely linked to FE in terms of gameplay, plot, and even creators. Personally, I'd say this is more like covering Xenogears on a Xenosaga wiki than DQ on a FF wiki. I don't want to sound rude, but at least know what your talking about before you vote, for either choice. I don't really comment on people's votes, the rest of you have legit, if sometimes repetitive, reasons. This one just bugged me.--Otherarrow 20:55, July 19, 2010 (UTC) Ok. Since this seems to be going nowhere, how about a compromise? We keep pages about the TRS games but instead of having a page for every character, we have character lists. That way, we get rid of stubs and clutter, we don't feature TRS too prominently, but we still keep the info for whoever might want it so nobody has to worry about a TRS wiki not being worked on. So how about it? Let's end this once and for all. 16:45, July 15, 2010 (UTC) :Hmm. Well, this may work, but then again, it could cause a problem if say, we start expanding on this (which I do plan to do, if no one else will. I can at least find stats). What if we become able to expand these sections into "full articles", such as more in depth (AKA actual) plot summaries for each character, stats, that sorta thing. Would you really be willing to cram all of that onto one page? (Possible, yes, but pages can only get so big before it takes too long to load them and the edit page starts mentioning that it is too large.) Or would you simply forbid such expansion because the game is no longer under "full coverage"? Despite my negative tone, this could work, but there are these problems that could arise. Maybe we can do the list, then splitting the pages as the sections get too large (whether it is by character, faction, class, or whatever)?--Otherarrow 18:03, July 15, 2010 (UTC) :That seems reasonable. It's true that the lists would become rather long so is there a way to make a chart that would allow us to place stats without making the page too long? If not, then I agree with writing complete articles for every one. I still think they should be relocated to list pages for the moment being until we can write full articles on them. Your second idea (that of splitting up the lists) I think would work even better, especially in conjunction with a solid chart system. As for plot summaries, I don't think we would need them for every character. If you really want to expand, I guess it wouldn't be a bad idea to write a few in-depth articles on the main character(s). 11:39, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Alright. So, err, should we start? As for the chart, what size do you mean? Is the Charstat the right size or too big? If it is a good enough size, I can probably get a TRS one (None of the current ones would really do. The TRS stats seem to take from mutiple games and so on).--Otherarrow 16:51, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :We should keep the articles and put a big Tear Ring Saga disclaimer on each of them. :Emperor Hardin 16:07, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :I think the question we should be answering is: does anybody CARE about the generic stories and stats about characters in a game they never have and probably never will play? I'm sorry, but I still think this is a bad idea. If a separate wiki can't survive on its own that means no one really cares about the information, so why should we have to sustain it or have to endure its presence? Cmolisa0 00:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Tear Ring Saga shows the direction Fire Emblem would've gone if Shozou Kaga had never left and it has tons of references to previous games such as dismounting been refined instead of dropped. Continents in Fire Emblem gaiden are referenced constantly and many characters are revisitations such as Barts and Norton. ::Emperor Hardin 00:45, July 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Endure it's presence? That makes no sense. It's not like the TRS articles are somehow "blocking out" the articles and data you do care about or anything like that. Wait, I may be misreading you here, but did you just agree that a separate Wiki can't survive on its own, yet you still claim doesn't belong here either? "No one cares, so why should we care"? So what do you propose, we just delete everything and pretend TRS, and it's links and relation to Fire Emblem, just don't exist? I may disagree with the move to a new Wiki, but at least then we can acknowledge it's existence and try to gather interest.--Otherarrow 00:35, July 24, 2010 (UTC) :::Yes, I am saying that because a separate wiki could not survive on its own that there is little reason to add a wave of new articles. Having said that, if all of you are so willing to create these articles then why don't you go and create them on a separate wiki? Problem solved. Cmolisa0 21:46, July 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::Hold it. It seems you are too emotionally invested in removing these articles, for a reason I honestly can't understand (you admit that you don't care about it, yet you put so much effort to remove it). We are working on a compromise here, and your bickering and attempting to renew the original argument is only delaying any progress. As mentioned below, it is not time to restate what we have already argued about. :::::I am not "emotionally invested" in the removal of the articles. Just because you are unable to follow my logic does not mean I am being irrational, it simply means you don't understand what I am saying. And I would hardly call what you're doing a compromise, you're going full throttle with the creation of articles for nearly everything. The only point I was trying to make is that if you are so willing to work on articles on THIS wiki, why would it be so difficult for you to maintain a separate wiki dedicated to TearRing Saga? In my opinion YOU are the one's who don't make any sense. Your justification for creating them here is that they wouldn't be worked on, on a separate wiki, but creating them here proves that somebody, aka YOU, would be willing to work on it. I'm not saying completely eliminate TRS from this wiki, on the contrary I think that one or two articles would suffice. But never mind, you clearly have concluded the debate and have adopted an extreme solution in the process. That's fine, just more meaningless pages to pollute the wiki. Cmolisa0 17:38, July 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::::You seem emotional invested. Slinging out insults such as how I can't "follow your logic" and your constant referring to the pages as "meaningless pollution". Speaking of which, these articles in no way "pollute" the wiki. They aren't vandalism. They aren't ugly to look at; no broken templates, no horrible grammar, none of that. They are stubs. Every wiki has stubs. However, instead of expanding them, we have spend all our effort bickering here, with you trying to move them to another wiki even though that wouldn't make them not stubs. (They'd go from "polluting" one wiki to "polluting" another, so the problem isn't solved.) Or is it because they are simply TRS? You claim you don't want to eliminate TRS from the Wiki, yet you call every TRS page "meaningless" and say they "pollute the Wiki", even the proposed compromise page (and how does the compromise create articles for "nearly everything"? We are merging them into a list, which is a single article, with plans to split the list if someone were to expand on the information in it, making it too large. The splitting may never happen.) ::::::Getting back to the emotional investment, you seem to enjoy scapegoating me for the TRS articles and their poor condition. I didn't create the articles. I didn't tell them to create the articles. Since I know little about the specifics of the plot, I will likely not be creating any articles, aside from the merged list. That would be like if I blamed you for not working on the Gaiden articles, even though you know nothing about Gaiden and didn't create the articles to begin with. That wouldn't be fair.--Otherarrow 19:41, July 27, 2010 (UTC) Now, I don't feel hostile to everyone who voted for them to leave. They aren't officially FE, I know, and if they did get sent off, the worst I would do to you would be asking you to at least watch over the new wiki for vandals and such. But even then, I didn't really read as much malice towards it, no insults towards the articles or towards TRS, none of that. C13g3 was even willing to compromise, which Cmolisa's rants and my response rants derailed. He can rant on if he wants, but I am done with it. I'm sorry everybody. Let's get done ironing out the details of the compromise, and put this behind us, Yes?--Otherarrow 19:41, July 27, 2010 (UTC) Compromise for reals Ok, hold it! We're just slinking back into the same argument. It's all been said already. Otherarrow is the admin; it's whatever he decides to do. He's heard both sides of the issue, we've discussed a potential solution, it's not the time to be restating what we've already argued about. Anyways, Otherarrow, we start when you say the word. As for the size and whatnot, we'll still have to discuss this further, not to mention I'm sure Semaj will be throwing in his two cents. But whatever your plans are, I'm willing to help out because I'm getting sick of this argument and if the fact that this has been going nowhere for months. 03:41, July 24, 2010 (UTC) *Ok. We can start with the list now. I won't be able to start until tomorrow though. One more question, I should have asked this before, are we keeping the character templates for each character?--Otherarrow 03:54, July 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::@C13g3: I am ready to start whenever you are. I just need to know about the Character templates. I did a "test" earlier, and since most of the current articles are stubs, the templates are too big for each section. Should we ax them, reduce them, or what?--Otherarrow 22:44, July 24, 2010 (UTC) Sorry for my delay in reply. I think we should just modify the template, removing some of the elements by adding more subdivisions within the category, if you know what I mean. I've been pretty busy lately so just tell me what I should do to help and I'll get it done as soon as I can. 20:59, July 28, 2010 (UTC) :I think I got you, and I have started it. You can start whenever you get free time.--Otherarrow 21:58, July 28, 2010 (UTC) :EDIT:I've made yet another attempt at starting the merging, but I ran into a bit of a snag. The original articles are too small, so that when I add the simplified template or even just the image, it doesn't fit in the section, pushing the later images down, so that they no longer are next to the character they represent. I'll go ahead and start without it, but if anyone knows of a solution, let me know.--Otherarrow 22:12, July 28, 2010 (UTC) Ok. I'll see what I can do 02:43, July 29, 2010 (UTC)